Lindsey Graham to GOP senators: Funny how you guys didn’t worry about drones under Bush

posted at 4:01 pm on March 7, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, here’s why I said in the McCain post that I didn’t share Mollie Hemingway’s receding cynicism. I trust that Paul would have the same objections to drone policy under a Republican president. I trust that Mike Lee would too. Beyond that, things get iffy. Glenn Greenwald has a point here:

Bush-cheerleading conservatives who “stand with Rand” = Rand-mocking progressives who pretended to care about civil liberties under Bush

Graham’s the right guy to challenge Paul because he is, in his own way, as nonpartisan on executive counterterrorism power as Paul is. If I understand him correctly, he ends up arguing at the end here that “enemy combatant” status is itself sufficient to justify a drone strike on a U.S. citizen on American soil whether or not he’s carrying out an attack at the time. This is the same guy who once lamented that we couldn’t rein in Koran-burning on grounds that, and I quote, “Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war.” This is not a guy who worries overly much about constitutional niceties when it comes to the military doing its job on counterterrorism. It’d be nice, at least, though, if he managed not to distort Paul’s point in the process. Paul’s not worried about Obama targeting noncombatants; what he’s saying is that there should be special protocols when dealing with “enemy combatants” if they’re American citizens and within reach of law enforcement here in the U.S. His point about Jane Fonda being theoretically targeted is that the definition of “enemy combatant” can be murky and potentially easily abused; to this day, the hard evidence that Awlaki was more than a propagandist and actually an operational leader is classified. Paul’s trying to draw at least one bright-line rule to limit the president’s power to unilaterally execute American citizens: In very narrow circumstances — U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who’s not presently engaged in an attack — you’ve got to send in the FBI to try to pick him up, not a Predator armed with Hellfires to take him down. Compared to the amount of anti-drone agitation in wider libertarian circles, Paul’s request here is actually conspicuously modest. He’s not asking for drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen to end. He’s not even asking, as Graham is quick to note, that Obama quit firing at American-citizen jihadis overseas. He wants some acknowledged limit on executive power and he chose the strongest conceptual ground on which to ask for it.

But look. Graham’s not really worried about Paul’s drone position here. What he’s worried about is a sea change inside the GOP caucus towards the isolationist view of the war on terror. I can imagine the look on his face when he saw Marco Rubio, the great interventionist hope, head to the floor yesterday afternoon to lend Paul a hand. (Rubio’s not going to make it easy for Paul to paint him as the GOP’s next crazed superhawk in 2016.) After 11 years of war it’s doubtless true that isolationism has more fans among Republicans than at any time in the last few decades; to see a member of the Paul family suddenly the party’s new hero must be a nightmare for McCain and Graham. As Ace puts it:

Now it’s possible they’re suspicious of Rand Paul and think he’s carrying water for his father’s Doctrinaire Pacifism but under the false flag of a much more narrow issue on which he has the right; that is, they think he’s trying to move opinion to the Doctrine Pacifist camp in the typical way the Pacifists and anti-American agitators do it, to wit, seizing one one particular grabby issue at a time.

I have to confess I have the same suspicion. I do believe Rand Paul is his father’s son.

So do I, and so I think do lots of mainstream conservatives, which is why Graham’s worries are overblown. The cynicism-inducing question from last night’s Senate insurrection is how many of them mean it and how many of them pitched in simply because it was an irresistible chance to publicly humiliate Obama on a basic constitutional question. The retail politics of it were so winning that I actually thought McCain and Graham might themselves swing by to offer some sort of tepid endorsement of minimal executive accountability. Didn’t happen, but I also don’t think Paul’s stand presages any tidal shift in the Republican caucus. Anyone believe, if O orders a raid on Iran’s reactors tomorrow, the GOP as a body will react with paleocon laments about imperialism and U.S. aggression? Graham’s not really talking to Paul and Mike Lee here (note his persistent backhanded compliments of Paul at the beginning for being a principled libertarian), he’s simply warning the rest that he knows grandstanding when he sees it and is prepared to call them on it if they keep it up.

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

McCain and Graham make a lot of noise opposing things but they roll over every time and kiss the President`s ass. McCain was like that when he was running for President and he took the so called political high road, but the magot Democrats ran him over on that road and they deserve credit for their tactics. Romney did the same thing

Who says we didn’t? All of the things Bush did, in our thoughts,we cringed because in the wrong hands all the things he did would be for bad instead of the good they were intended for. I refer to the Patriot act for example. Great ideas, but it the wrong hands, BAD ideas; Drones the same way.

Bush tried to appease. He tried to be a peacemaker between the sides. He was the right person to be sitting there on 9/11.

OB however, and his croanies, with killer drones? They want this country to be like Isreal where countries just lob stuff in at random. Or some third world country.

I really don’t give a rosey red rat’s patooot what Mssr.s McCain & Graham think. I have one position on the issue of drones inside the US. I want NO president…not Obama, Bush or George Washington to have the legal right to violate my due process rights or those rights of any American. I would say the same thing under Bush or even under Regan. Generations of Americans fought, bled and died to protect those rights inshrined in our Constitution and Declaration Of Indepedence. If you want to call Rand Paul fillibustering grandstanding or a political ploy so be it…I am tired of those elected to represent the people not respresenting us. I salute Senator Paul and the others for standing up and asking the questions that needed to be asked

Interesting ironic object lesson in all this. For months who were the ones lecturing us about the need for party unity in order to win? RINOs. Now who are the first ones out of the gate to attack and undermine party unity in the aftermath of the most effective and popular attack on Obama we’ve yet seen? The RINOs.

Even that worthless tool Ann Coulter wrote, in her latest column, that republicans should stop arguing about drones because most Americans don’t understand the issue. In her opinion, in order for Repubs to get elected, they need to get on board with pop culture issues that the low info voters think is like, totally cool. Then repubs will be the cool kids in Washington, making up laws. Because, that is the point of Washington, to churn out laws and regulations, right?

tdarrington on March 7, 2013 at 4:29 PM

And to think, in my early days of political “give a damn” I liked Ann. I guess I’m growing..

I truly hope this is sarcasm, because I think last night was the epitome of what is right with conservatism. Today not so much, but Graham and McCain aren’t representative of Conservatism only establishment. It is the death of the GOP powerbrokers that we are seeing..

Mr. Bush, nor anyone in his Administration, claimed to have a right to launch drone attacks on American citizens within our borders in spite of the fact that our courts are still in operation.

Now, as drones become smaller and less lethal to those around the target, I could see that changing — when a drone carries the equivalent of a small calibre gun, I can see the police or the FBI using one to suppress a domestic criminal (into which I subclass a terrorist operating in our country). But in the end, there will be a human law enforcement person deciding whether and where to put a bullet.

If an American citizen,on American soil was attempting mass murder of American citizens via a terrorist attack I couldn’t care less if he is a citizen or not-I just want him dead.That said Graham and McCain never saw an international conflict that they didn’t want to drag our troops into,no matter if our vital national interests are involved,no matter the length of stay regardless of whether victory is attainable and regardless of the cost in blood and treasure. I do not trust libertarians, they perch dangerously on the line between freedom and anarchy,and seem way to eager to please the Islamo-fascists intent on our destruction.I am a realist who would prefer an isolationist policy provided we are willing to launch a swift,brief annihilation of any interests that seek our demise.I will never vote for Rand Paul,and I will vote to oust Lindsey Grahamnesty in the next primary here in South Carolina.If Graham wins the primary, I will stay home for the general.

I can imagine the look on his face when he saw Marco Rubio, the great interventionist hope, head to the floor yesterday afternoon to lend Paul a hand. (Rubio’s not going to make it easy for Paul to paint him as the GOP’s next crazed superhawk in 2016.)

Marco went not so much because of Rand, but also because of Cruz.

AP, I don’t know how closely you follow this aspect, but Rand has insinuated a few times that it was he and “one or two others” that came up with this. That’s Cruz, Lee, and probably McConnell.

Rand and Cruz have a deal, no doubt. Cruz is going to try and supplant Marco as the latino face of the GOP. If he gets traction, Rand wins the nomination by splitting latino votes away. Rubio is keenly aware of what’s up.

The last name there is the biggest, of course. I guess Rubio thought that, having spoken on the floor twice yesterday in Paul’s defense, he had enough political cover to throw hawks a bone by voting for Brennan.

Rubio’s support was wishy washy and indecisive. He spent alot of time tweeting before he decided to support. Cruz and Lee were already out there behind Paul when Rubio jumped into the fray.

AP, I don’t know how closely you follow this aspect, but Rand has insinuated a few times that it was he and “one or two others” that came up with this. That’s Cruz, Lee, and probably McConnell.

Rand and Cruz have a deal, no doubt. Cruz is going to try and supplant Marco as the latino face of the GOP. If he gets traction, Rand wins the nomination by splitting latino votes away. Rubio is keenly aware of what’s up.

budfox on March 7, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Yeppers, and I think Cruz’s star burns so much brighter than Rubio.. He impresses me so much more than Rubio..

As I said last in the Randpage thread last night, we’re seeing the clear split in the GOP, the DefenseJunkies/W/Neocon/Kristol wing and the Rand/Will/Right Libertarians.

All the proof you need was in three sources – WSJ Editorial, Limbaugh, and Hannity.

WSJ Editorial is Murdoch by proxy. He beleives in defecit spending for the military, consequences be damned.

Hannity is Ailes puppet. Sean did everything he could to downplay the filibuster last night, while actually trying to talk up Jeb Bush.

Limbaugh talked to Rand, confronted on some of the industrial-military “concerns”, but then tried to triangulate Rand’s success with a WaPo poll that said people want 5% across-the-board cuts – but to the military.

The Defense Spenders are scared. They are going to try and box Rand in now, because destroying him kills the party.

We are going to have to napalm any sacred cow – Rush, FNC, WSJ, – who comes after or tries to undermine Paul.

In the end, if it comes down to Paul vs Hillary – they will back Hillary because she’s in fat-neck deep with foreign venture spending.

Pretty interesting that the first politicians to hammer away at Rand Paul and the people who supported him.. and all the people who were inspired by him… the first politicians are leaders from our own party. Not Democrats. What does this tell us?

The Democrats did not even seem to know how to respond. Even Dick Durbin, although he tried to shut it down too… treated Rand with a degree of respect.

But not our RINO’s

So who are the real obstacles to our liberty? Democrats or Republican leadership? Who is really doing Obama’s dirty work? Democrats or Republican leadership?

It is condescending of Gomar Pyle to stand there and publicly criticize such a great effort by a fellow Senator. It inspired so many people and and for one bright moment unity a lot of Americans in support of what? The constitution! But that was too freaking much for these RINOs!

Lindsey Graham to GOP senators: Funny how you guys didn’t worry about drones under Bush

screw you linsey. I was against much of the patriot act and much of the other crap like dhs, tsa etc precisely for the same reason I was against the bailout. You don’t break free market principles to save capitalism any more then you break the constitution, especially the God -given rights in order to preserve security. Furthermore you have to thing long term about establishing new precedents starting with the question; while x sounds like a good idea, can it be abused by the other side or worse by unscrupulous politicians and nameless bureaucrats. If the answer is yes, then the decision on x is no! The prime directive is to preserve liberty not promote general welfare or ensure security. Without liberty we can’t have security nor general welfare because those two flow from liberty.

A hearty bravo to Rand, Cruz and Lee. McVain and his band of bendovers are fit for nothing more than to hold the p!ss bucket when the aforementioned speak.

The 535 we put in office to represent us appoint thousands of staff to do the work they themselves take credit. Google it, I did. This will give you a huge clue why our Congress is in the shape it’s in.

Graham and McCain can either get on board, get out of the way or get run over. I care not a whit what either of those preening go-along-to-get-along camera hogs choose. Both might realize that we are in a war, if either would wake up long enough to notice.

Graham and McCain should rot in hell – and get on their knees and thank God that *He* is their judge, and not the rest of us.

I really can’t express my disgust with these cretins in severe enough terms. As loathsome as far leftists are, so much more so are these lickspittle GOP’ers who spared no energy being a thorn in the side of Republicans, and being a balm to liberals.

I really don’t give a rosey red rat’s patooot what Mssr.s McCain & Graham think. I have one position on the issue of drones inside the US. I want NO president…not Obama, Bush or George Washington to have the legal right to violate my due process rights or those rights of any American. I would say the same thing under Bush or even under Regan. Generations of Americans fought, bled and died to protect those rights inshrined in our Constitution and Declaration Of Indepedence. If you want to call Rand Paul fillibustering grandstanding or a political ploy so be it…I am tired of those elected to represent the people not respresenting us. I salute Senator Paul and the others for standing up and asking the questions that needed to be asked

JKotthoff on March 7, 2013 at 6:47 PM

I agree with everything you wrote. The “war boys” of McCain and Graham think freedom of speech is a “nice idea”. No. It’s an unalienable right, just as the right to bear arms is. They’re tyrants who use the excuse of perpetual war to violate our constitutionally protected liberties at will. They will one-day represent the old GOP and could even leave for a new party. They don’t fit in with a party demanding constitutional adherence.

What he’s worried about is a sea change inside the GOP caucus towards the isolationist view of the war on terror. I can imagine the look on his face when he saw Marco Rubio, the great interventionist hope, head to the floor yesterday afternoon to lend Paul a hand. (Rubio’s not going to make it easy for Paul to paint him as the GOP’s next crazed superhawk in 2016.)

The republicans could use a bit of a shift. The fact is, while there’s a lot of merit to the neoconservative position – we are in the middle of a global struggle against a rather vicious group of fanatics, after all – the government as a whole, and the executive branch in particular, is badly in need of some boundaries.

Also, if the political right is going to survive, it’s going to need to find common ground between the less extreme libertarians and the less extreme hawks. Some kind of consensus needs to emerge that

1. prevents us from becoming an Orwellian police state
2. prevents us from getting blown up by a bunch of psychopaths

There are lots of reasonable people worried about #1, and plenty more worried about #2. And I think they’re both right to be worried; it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the government found a way to screw up both simultaneously.

I think Rand Paul and Rubio both understand that, at least to a degree – certainly Paul does, listening to his speech. While they’re obviously acting in their own political interest as well, in this case I think they’re pulling us in the right direction. There’s so much common ground here that it would be excessively stupid to cast this as some kind of Manichaean struggle between antisemitic wimps and power-hungry crypto-fascists.

Question for Sen “G”. Did Prez Bush ever deliberately use a drone to turn any American into a pile of goo? Don’t know about you but if I have a choice between a pile of goo or a pint or two of water loaded into my sinus cavities, the water sounds OK to me.

Lindsey Graham to GOP senators: Funny how you guys didn’t worry about drones under Bush

Notice there, carefully, how slyly Graham (and McCain with other comments) have picked up the Left’s effort to CHANGE THE SUBJECT and is now arguing it.

He’s making his criticism of the Right, Rand, etc. on the FANTASY that the filibuster by Rand was about foreign policy, the use of drones for warfare on foreign soil against enemies.

WHICH ISN’T WHAT THE FILIBUSTER WAS ABOUT, it was about Obama’s incompetent, despicable refusal to deny that he use drones against American citizens on US soil.

The Left needs the argument, instead, as Graham (and McCain) have desperately ensued with it, too, to be about foreign-policy-warfare-use-of-drones and they’re intentionally trying to override the worst of what Obama is attempting and that is the use of drones on US citizens on US soil.

I can’t stand these politico’s (Graham’s, McCain’s) sneaky suggestions that complaints and concerns by the Right are somehow equivalent or indicative of “denying we’re at war” and being soft or cowardly on foreign policy, on defense.

But they’re doing this slippery-slope change of subject sleight-of-hand intentionally and it disgusts me about them both.

Same thing McCain tried in his weasely campaign for the Presidency and same thing he and Graham are trying with their weasel-works about amnesty for illegal aliens: making Americans who support defense and national security and our Constitution out to be the bad guys.

…Same thing McCain tried in his weasely campaign for the Presidency and same thing he and Graham are trying with their weasel-works about amnesty for illegal aliens: making Americans who support defense and national security and our Constitution out to be the bad guys.

Lindsey Graham to GOP senators: Funny how you guys didn’t worry about drones under Bush

Funny, I don’t remember that GWB had a kill list or asserted the idea that it was okay to kill Americans on American soil without benefit of due process. Graham, you’re an ass clown who makes a joke of your constituents….. and you’re from South Carolina where your ex-Governor left his job and the country for noogie! How pathetic does that make you?

Interesting ironic object lesson in all this. For months who were the ones lecturing us about the need for party unity in order to win? RINOs. Now who are the first ones out of the gate to attack and undermine party unity in the aftermath of the most effective and popular attack on Obama we’ve yet seen? The RINOs.

rrpjr

And who is it who says we all need to rally behind the nominee when the RINO wins the primary … but refuses to do it when the RINO loses the primary?

Interesting ironic object lesson in all this. For months who were the ones lecturing us about the need for party unity in order to win? RINOs. Now who are the first ones out of the gate to attack and undermine party unity in the aftermath of the most effective and popular attack on Obama we’ve yet seen? The RINOs.

Problem is both Lindsey Graham and John McCain forgot that without rules, there is no society to defend…..they ignored the Constitution at their own peril, and the bill for their ignorance is due.
It would seem there are no rules.
We, the Oathkeepers, are now operating on the “no Rules” basis.
It’s the only way to rid the Republic of the Marxist scourge.
We will try to take the treasonist bastards into custody, to be tried by a Constitutional Court.
The current SCOTUS is a political court, stuffed with people who cannot read the simple words of the Constitution.
We’re coming…
Big Sis’s tanks and drones cannot protect the regime.
Our job is to kill the virus….be the antidote to a terrible infection that we have allowed to fester for a century.
We’re coming…
III/0317

But I still don’t trust Rubio. I think he’s jumped on the Rand-Cruz bandwagon because he sees it as popular and surging and his association with mentor Jeb Bush to be failing.

I think Rubio is still untested, untried and as yet, not really trustworthy from a politically Right perspective.

Cruz, Rand Paul, they’re clearly carrying the fire.

Lourdes on March 7, 2013 at 9:47 PM

The ONLY reason Rubio jumped in last night was because his campaign manager told him to. With 2016 looming on the horizon he could not NOT join. Although with this not really well thought out jump in he turned to “OWS let’s make money quick” (con) artist aka Jay-Z since he had nothing else to offer on the subject on hand. While Cruz was on point each and every time and as effective as Paul, IMO.

Come 2016, I hope its RAND Paul/Cruz or Cruz/RAND Paul ticket we run on. Perry, as much as I liked him before, is off my list now due to his anti-Cruz stance last year.

When I look at Marco Rubio, now all I see is the face of John McCain looking back at me and I can almost hear, “My friends, my friends …” coming from his mendacious mouth. It has become very clear that Rubio is The Man Who Never Was. He’s just a conman with no longer very convincing cons, so teenage girls you can get over your crush on him and now would be a good time.

Allapundit thank you so much !!! You are making the same mistake Hot Air and all the right wing hacks like Hannity,Rush,Malkin,Morris made last election cycle.You are getting your echo chamber of right wing nonsense and crazy bloggers mixed up with the American electorate.Keep thinking Rand Paul did something worthwhile yesterday,keep thinking it represented a victory over President Obama,keep thinking that the American public cares about it. Keep supporting right wingers like Cruz ,Rubio, and Paul and help them get nominated for the GOP in 2016. President Hillary Clinton will much appreciate it. Hot Air was stunned by Obama ,Biden and the American public last election day ,and looks like you will be again next time too. Thanks Allah

This is a hysterical rant which proves the effectiveness of Rand Paul. He’s not a talking points bot like Romney or your typical establishment Neocon like McCain, he transcended partisanship during his 12 hours while you are left defending Obama for everything you criticized Bush for doing.

As for being “shocked”, you were already stunned by the Red Wave in 2010, all the movement needs now is to be personified by a single man to take the party in a new, fresh direction; Rand Paul clearly shows signs of being that leader.

So cling to your old partisan allegiances you hack, once your celebrity President is out of office you’re back to the same old faces having to defend a whole slew of hypocrisies on national security. Will 70 year old Hillary be up to that task? lol

I look forward to seeing Paul flank Hillary on civil liberties and Neocon interventionism in 2016.

Graham is better at comparing apples to oranges than anyone who ever put on a matching asshat.
Conservatism would be better served without the gullible wisdom of McCain, Graham, and Boehner.
Basically, if it draws criticism from these three … you’re on the right side.

Graham is better at comparing apples to oranges than anyone who ever put on a matching dumb-mass-hat.
Conservatism would be better served without the gullible wisdom of McCain, Graham, and Boehner.
Basically, if it draws criticism from these three … you’re on the right side.

The differences are:
In a combat zone all bets are off.
In the USA we are protected by the constitution.
If a president issued a drone strike it would have to be approved by the governor of the State where it is being deployed, at a military facility, CDC contagion area, nuclear facility, or under marshall law.
I cannot think of any other lawful way to approve an attack on US soil. Outside of these guidelines I think that it would be an act of treason.

The simple thing to do at this point is for Senators Rand, Lee, et. al. to put together a two page bill that just states that drone technologies may not be used to launch attacks against American Citizens in the territory of the United States. Period.

SWAT teams with helicopters should be able to cover the ‘ticking time bomb’ sort of deal and an imminent attack by using a jetliner isn’t really something you want drones flying around constantly armed for – in the time it takes to prep a drone you can scramble a fighter to do the same job, faster. And if the country let people in ready to attack it LEGALLY then that is the problem of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH and if they came in illegally that is a problem of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH for not enforcing the laws created by Congress. Shoot down all those ‘foreigners’ that might come here to do harm by pointing out that Congress already put laws on the books to COVER THOSE TOPICS and DRONES ARE NOT NEEDED FOR THEM.

Just put that bill into committee and dare anyone to say something against it and then step right up to the Senate floor and put that Senator on the spot by pointing out that they are unwilling to safeguard your life, your liberty, your due process rights right here in the United States. D or R you name the names.

The best part is that this can start in the Senate.

Then the next bill can cover wide-ranging drone surveillance and espionage against Citizens in the territory of the US. Which is also breaking due process rights and has no judge in the loop to hand out a warrant for such work on an active CRIMINAL CASE that is ongoing against someone suspected of COMMITTING A CRIME.

Libertarians in the Senate have a chance to strike while the iron is hot… and it wouldn’t take much effort, either.

Hot Air was stunned by Obama ,Biden and the American public last election day…

U2denver on March 7, 2013 at 11:28 PM

This is a fair statement. I think a large majority of informed voters were puzzled that unemployment could be that bad, NSA surveillance increased, the economy still not recovered, gold prices still extremely high (not that people know what it relates to, but still), etc., and he could still get so many American Idol folks off the couch to vote for him.

“And the American public” is right. Realizing firsthand that they were so massively ill-informed while simultaneously self-centered and easily led/misled was what stunned me the most. It was almost like they didn’t care to know what was happening around them.

I may not be Senator Paul’s biggest fan. That being said, I am certainly glad he is a Republican member of the Senate and concerned with our Bill of Rights and actually doing the job he was elected to do.

Meanwhile, we have lifelong politicians such as McCain and Graham who have done nothing close to honorable over the course of their entire careers. They have become symbolic of everything wrong with Congress. While a very serious question was being debated in the chamber, a question I might add the President via his Attorney General felt strongly enough about to address, they were eating an extravagant dinner with the President.

And what it Mr. McCain and Graham’s response? To attack someone who was protecting and defending the Constitution they swore to uphold. A member of their own party supported by other party members and an assorted number of people from across the political spectrum.

This president has assaulted the fiscal, social and defensive pillars of our society for four years now. When has McCain or Graham ever spoken out so vociferously against any of those intrusions? The answer is never.

Personally, I believe they should relish their surrender dinner with the President. Because neither of them deserves are support and we should do all possible to rid Washington of their presence.